Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                        K. ZeilengaRequest for Comments: 3494                           OpenLDAP FoundationObsoletes:1484,1485,1487,1488,1777,                      March 20031778,1779,1781,2559Category: InformationalLightweight Directory Access Protocol version 2 (LDAPv2)to Historic StatusStatus of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   This document recommends the retirement of version 2 of the   Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAPv2) and other dependent   specifications, and discusses the reasons for doing so.  This   document recommendsRFC 1777, 1778, 1779, 1781, and 2559 (as well as   documents they superseded) be moved to Historic status.Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, version 2   LDAPv2 (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, version 2)   [RFC1777][RFC1778][RFC1779] is an Internet Protocol used to access   X.500-based directory services.  This document recommends that LDAPv2   and other dependent specifications be retired.  Specifically, this   document recommendsRFC 1777, 1778, 1779, 1781, and 2559 (as well as   documents they superseded) be moved to Historic status.  The reasons   for taking this action are discussed below.   LDAPv2 was published in 1995 as a Draft Standard.  Since its   publication, a number of inadequacies in the specification have been   discovered.  LDAPv3 [RFC3377] was published in 1997 as a Proposed   Standard to resolve these inadequacies.  While LDAPv3 is currently   being revised [LDAPbis], it is clearly technically superior to   LDAPv2.   The LDAPv2 specification is not generally adhered to; that is, an   independently developed implementation of the specification would not   interoperate with existing implementations, as existingZeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3494               LDAPv2 to Historic Status              March 2003   implementations use syntaxes and semantics different than those   prescribed by the specification.  Below are two examples.      1) Existing LDAPv2 implementations do not commonly restrict         textual values to IA5 (ASCII) and T.61 (Teletex) as required byRFC 1777 andRFC 1778.  Some existing implementations use ISO         8859-1, others use UCS-2, others use UTF-8, and some use the         current local character set.      2)RFC 1777 requires use of the textual string associated with         AttributeType in the X.500 Directory standards.  However,         existing implementations use the NAME associated with the         AttributeType in the LDAPv3 schema [RFC2252].  That is, LDAPv2         requires the organization name attribute be named         "organizationName", not "o".   In addition, LDAPv2 does not provide adequate security features for   use on the Internet.  LDAPv2 does not provide any mechanism for data   integrity or confidentiality.  LDAPv2 does not support modern   authentication mechanisms such as those based on DIGEST-MD5, Kerberos   V, and X.509 public keys.Dependent Specifications   Since the publication ofRFC 1777, 1778, and 1779, there have been   additional standard track RFCs published that are dependent on these   technical specifications, including:      "Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User Friendly Naming"      [RFC1781]         and      "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Operational Protocols -      LDAPv2" [RFC2559].RFC 1781 is a technical specification for "User Friendly Naming"   which replies on particular syntaxes described inRFC 1779.RFC2253, which replacedRFC 1779, eliminated support for the "User   Friendly Naming" syntaxes.RFC 1781 is currently a Proposed   Standard.RFC 2559 is primarily an applicability statement for using LDAPv2 in   providing Public Key Infrastructure.  It depends onRFC 1777 and   updatesRFC 1778.  If LDAPv2 is moved to Historic status, so must   this document.RFC 2559 is currently a Proposed Standard.Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 3494               LDAPv2 to Historic Status              March 2003Security Considerations   LDAPv2 does not provide adequate security mechanisms for general use   on the Internet.  LDAPv3 offers far superior security mechanisms,   including support for strong authentication and data confidentiality   services.  Moving LDAPv2 to Historic may improve the security of the   Internet by encouraging implementation and use of LDAPv3.Recommendations   Developers should not implement LDAPv2 perRFC 1777, as such would   result in an implementation that will not interoperate with existing   LDAPv2 implementations.  Developers should implement LDAPv3 instead.   Deployers should recognize that significant interoperability issues   exist between current LDAPv2 implementations.  LDAPv3 is clearly   technically superior to LDAPv2 and hence should be used instead.   It is recommended thatRFC 1777,RFC 1778,RFC 1779,RFC 1781, andRFC 2559 be moved to Historic status.   The previously superseded specificationsRFC 1484, 1485, 1487, and   1488 (byRFC 1781, 1779, 1777, and 1778, respectively) should also be   moved to Historic status.Acknowledgment   The author would like to thank the designers of LDAPv2 for their   contribution to the Internet community.Normative References   [RFC1777] Yeong, W., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory             Access Protocol",RFC 1777, March 1995.   [RFC1778] Howes, T., Kille, S., Yeong, W. and C. Robbins, "The String             Representation of Standard Attribute Syntaxes",RFC 1778,             March 1995.   [RFC1779] Kille, S., "A String Representation of Distinguished             Names",RFC 1779, March 1995.   [RFC1781] Kille, S., "Using the OSI Directory to Achieve User             Friendly Naming",RFC 1781, March 1995.   [RFC2559] Boeyen, S., Howes, T. and P. Richard, "Internet X.509             Public Key Infrastructure Operational Protocols - LDAPv2",RFC 2559, April 1999.Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 3494               LDAPv2 to Historic Status              March 2003Informative References   [LDAPbis] IETF LDAP Revision (v3) Working Group (LDAPbis),             <http://www.ietf.org/html-charters/ldapbis-charter.html>.   [RFC3377] Hodges, J. and R. Morgan, "Lightweight Directory Access             Protocol (v3): Technical Specification",RFC 3377,             September 2002.   [RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T. and S. Kille,             "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):  Attribute             Syntax Definitions",RFC 2252, December 1997.   [RFC2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory             Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of             Distinguished Names",RFC 2253, December 1997.Author's Address   Kurt D. Zeilenga   OpenLDAP Foundation   EMail: Kurt@OpenLDAP.orgZeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 3494               LDAPv2 to Historic Status              March 2003Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than   English.   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Zeilenga                     Informational                      [Page 5]